Tim where are you getting $25.35 from? I see $24.60 on the base rate. Remember our pay parity is in Sept of 2015.Tim Nelson said:
I think we should have a choice on retirement options like they did at Alaska. Bull rushing everyone into the IAMPF without establishing a 3 prong company contribution for the sUS is ludicrous since it puts more money into a 3rd party who has a defined pension that can only stay green by cutting future benefits. Those on the sUS side are stuck with it, including me, but it would be nice to have any retirement increase in a 401k where we can control our own money.737823 said:
For pay parity purposes it is $25.35 because it includes the .75 longevity as well. Likewise, delta's longevity is .60 and factored in. FWIW: there are grammatical and numerical errors in your contract that I'm surprised the TWU or management didn't correct.WeAAsles said:
Right now that is not a part of what I am getting at here and have no reason to go back into that debate at the moment. I also didn't question it's viability in my comment so please do not try to start a distraction from the current topic.737823 said:
Tim Nelson said:
I could be wrong and don't feel like looking it up at the moment but are you sure that the longevity is factored in? I tend to doubt it? Remember not everyone is at the max rate for longevity in the industry so I can't see why it would be a consideration.Tim Nelson said:
part timers working 25 hours a week get a net benefit of around $19 a month per year, which blows. Work 10 years as part time like 40% do, and you get a whopping $190 a month. WTF?737823 said:
yeah, longevity and line pay is factored in, including yours. All max's are averaged. At the snapshot, I got you guys making $23.78 which covers the longevity max.WeAAsles said:
Overlooking the wage steps is a disappointment. I hope they revisit things if they have to shuffle things around this week and lesson the wage progression from being topped out at the beginning of the 13th year, down to the end of the 9th year like at American.cltrat said:
Tim either way no matter where you guys are at on the scale we will get a 2.1% increase on the snapshot date if the average of the 4 is not higher. Have you done the mathematics assuming you are making the same base rate as us yet? Either way how I look at it is if UAL and DAL are making $1.00 or so more than us I want to know what value we have in our contracts that they do not have? That's a very important thing to me.Tim Nelson said:
I topped out in 8. Under a new contract bargained for in the past we usually received a step increase as well. Now from October 1995 till our 2001 contract we had Junior FSC's. The 2001 agreement got rid of that but it slotted them over only to the next step above what they were currently making in base wages.Tim Nelson said:
I honestly could not see the TWU negotiators agreeing to continue those items in a JCBA? Except for in DFW our hubs have a lot of PTers and the negotiators are those Presidents who have to come back and explain the contracts to their members. I couldn't even begin to imagine what would happen to those Presidents if they agreed to concessions for our PTers. Ouch ouch ouch.....robbedagain said:
I hear yaWeAAsles said:
But you see again Robbed let's say that all changed whether now or under a JCBA and PTers got the same benefits as FTers, medical costs and pension contributions. That's a pretty big cost to the company and could explain why we "Might" be making a base rate lower than UAL and DAL in the future?????robbedagain said:
